The new Micheal Moore film (unseen by me until tomorrow) has created a bit of controversy. Is the film worth seeing? Was the film deserving of the Palm??? Is this better/worse than "Bowling for Columbine"/"Roger and Me"? Has this changed your political views???

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

I loved it. Granted, I actually like Michael Moore, but I really thought this film was good. Maybe it was the difference in the issues involved, but this film had a lot more emotional impact for me than the previous Michael Moore films.

There are lots of really heartbreaking moments and although I'm sure someone can tell me how a lot of stuff was manipulated and taken out of context, for me the most powerful moments had nothing to do with context ... you could put them in any context imaginable and they would still have the same effect on me.

I did feel like the film tried to cover SO much ... it went from pre-election all the way up to the war and each small part of the movie could easily have been a whole movie in and of itself.

I also thought it was interesting that the subject of religion was untouched. But I thought that was a best decision, since Moore's somewhat irreverent treatment of subjects may have led to people perceiving him as making fun of religion, which would not have been a good or useful thing to do.

The treatment of 9/11 is really excellent, and there is some really jarring footage of scenes in Iraq. Be warned that some of them are pretty graphic, so if you're sensitive go in being ready to look away at some points.

Id be reluctant to call any film by Moore a "documentary".

See it. It's Moore's best work to date.

Don't expect a water-tight case for anything. I'd be tempted to call it "reality-based humor", except that much of that reality is anything but funny.

If you want an unassailable expose more than you want entertainment, watch Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War instead of F9/11.

Uncovered is the kind of documentary that Moore would have to make to avoid much of the criticism that he gets (for not being "objective", for playing fast and loose with the facts, etc.) As you can see, Uncovered makes its case impeccably, but it would never attract 2-3 million paying viewers on its opening weekend. (Still, it has sold a few hundred thousand copies through the Internet, so it's not doing too bad.)

There seemed to be a lot less fact-twisting in this movie (re: Member 27), but I didn't like it much at all- I thought the pacing was really weak, it had long lapses without making a point, and that the points it did make were rather poorly defended.

prejudice is good if its acknowledged and not fed into. if you espouse and worship objectivity as some kind of idol then you're only placing your insecurities on full display.

another fine example of this is the documentary posted above - the WHOLE TRUTH about the iraq war. what's a WHOLE TRUTH ? why not just the truth ? the WHOLE TRUTH of anything promises desperate sensationalsim and a massive serving of self-conscious drivel. when you are so presumptious and need the WHOLE TRUTH you are being comical without laughs.

moore is a sanctimonious know-nothing who created a soft-core hate film against bush. this is fine, up to a point, but his shameless manipulations veered beyond any acceptable subjectivty. he concocts mysteries from non-events - i.e. those seven minutes he counted which bush spent in the classroom after hearing of the second tower strike - and tries to project his own sick deluded musings into the mind of his subject.

what i found most disturbing was his exploitation of those grieving parents. he takes his camera and bores into their faces. no close-ups are close enough in these scenes.

I heard an interview on the radio with Lila Lipscomb yesterday and she did not say anything about feeling exploited. She said she was proud of her part in the film, and she didn't seem to have any problem with the way she was portrayed.

If it doesn't bother her, then it doesn't bother me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KT:

If it doesn't bother her, then it doesn't bother me.

---

On the other hand, the family of the soldier being laid to rest at Arlington which Moore filmed without the family's permission is horrified by the exploitation of their son in the film and are considering suing him. The case probably wouldn't be winnable because Arlington is a "public place" as Moore will no doubt claim with a smug satisfaction, but the fact that he didn't even attempt to get permission before making money from their dead son, brother, and father is disgusting to me. To suggest that he was against the war or died needlessly is all the more disgusting.

Member 27,

Does Moore call it a documentary? Or is it simply a category distinguishing it from fiction or dramatic? I think most people understand it for what it is, a polemic, where he makes the case that George lied and deceived the American public into an invasion and occupation of Iraq. What is tragic for the United States and its reputation elsewhere in the world is that much of that case has proven to be true.

SparkleMotion wrote:

"To suggest that he was against the war or died needlessly is all the more disgusting."

Who knows whether this American soldier died needlessly or not?

42,000 American military personnel died in Vietnam (and a coupla million Vietnese, if we care). American power and honor were diminished, and contrary to the rationale at the time, Southeast Asia did not fall. We were lied to than too.

I don't know about you, but 42,000 deaths and a poisoned body politic that hasn't gone away yet, I call that needless.

Hell, if this American soldier was "for" the war and he died for lies and deceit, does that make his death "less" needless? Com'n.

"Disgusting" is to die for no good reason, and to die for lies, well, I would say that whoever got him there is criminal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KT:
I heard an interview on the radio with Lila Lipscomb yesterday and she did not say anything about feeling exploited. She said she was proud of her part in the film, and she didn't seem to have any problem with the way she was portrayed.

If it doesn't bother her, then it doesn't bother me.

---

ofcourse, lila lipscomb would have nothing but kind words for moore - she consented to his
actions. her opinion of moore is no better
than moore's.

lila is much like the father of nick berg, who now parades around the planet blaming bush for the death of his son.

syzygy,

Let's not just accept whatever is given to us as gospel:

Lila Lipscomb, as the mother of a dead son killed in the line of fire, is entitled to whatever she wants to feel, whatever her reasons. Would you begrudge a mother's pain and loss?

If George Bush sent her son to Iraq for the purported reason of imminent threat to the safety of America, than he died valiantly in the defense of his country.

If George Bush lied, i.e., WMD, link to 9/11, "liberators", than he was sent there on a fraud, and when he took enemy fire, he died for no reason at all. If Lila Lipscomb wants to blame Bush, you say she has no right?

To say it as plainly as possible: Nick Berg was a war profiteer. He went to Iraq to make a buck, like all the private contractors and corporations in the wake of the American invasion and occupation, scavengers on the carcass of Iraq. We should be ashamed.

quote:

---

ofcourse, lila lipscomb would have nothing but kind words for moore - she consented to his
actions. her opinion of moore is no better
than moore's.

---

The original quote I was responding to was objecting to the way Moore "Got into the faces of the greiving parents." The only time I could remember a camera being put in the face a grieving parents was the case of Lila Lipscomb, and she not only consented to it at the time, but even now after seeing the finished product is fully in support of the film, and was happy to have her grief filmed if it meant that some people could understand the impact that this war had on people like her.

SO my original point still stands, I don't have a problem with him sticking his camera in her grieving face if she doesn't.

To the extent he filmed people without their consent and used it, that is wrong. And they might have a case ... there is a cause of action for defamation for what he did, and being in a public place has nothing to do with it. There was a analogous case earlier in which a local news channel showed a clip of a woman walking down the street while talking about how that street was notorious for prostitution and the woman was able to sue them for insinuating that she was a prostitute. Basically what it would come down to is whether the use of the son's image is damaging to his reputation--i.e., whether the reasonable person watching the documentary could conclude something damaging to the son's reputation.

They could also have a cause of action for "false light" which means that Moore used their son's image in a commercial product and portrayed him in a false light for commercial advantage. The use would most likely be subject to a "newsworthiness" exception in which allows for use in a newsworthy item as long as it is not an advertisement in disguise, and as long as the representation bears some relationship to the story. Whether you think the film is "newsworthy" or not, in the eyes of the law it probably would be since a "most embarassing moments" column of a teen magazine has been found newsworthy.

So, I doubt that they could win a lawsuit against him, there are all kinds of arguments against defamation, but it has nothing to do with being in a public place.

To be honest, I don't even remember that soldier's name or anything about him. The statement to me was not "Look at this guy who was against the war and died." But, "look at how many people have died." it's up to you to decide whether they died needlessly or not.

<end legal lecture>

quote:

---

Originally posted by wong828:
syzygy,

Let's not just accept whatever is given to us as gospel:

Lila Lipscomb, as the mother of a dead son killed in the line of fire, is entitled to whatever she wants to feel, whatever her reasons. Would you begrudge a mother's pain and loss?

---

i never begrudged her pain. i begrudged the company her pain now keeps. moore gave a great gift to the democratic party and he hopes the commercial weight of lila lipscomb's pain will pay dividends in the fall.

quote:

---

If George Bush sent her son to Iraq for the purported reason of imminent threat to the safety of America, than he died valiantly in the defense of his country.

---

not the issue. lila can grieve - and i don't need to tell her or anyone else who suffered a loss to do so. but when i sat through moore's latest splash of sensationalism should i have been expected to continue empathizing after she has sold her pain to benefit moore's political muckraking ? methinks not.

quote:

---

If George Bush lied, i.e., WMD, link to 9/11, "liberators", than he was sent there on a fraud, and when he took enemy fire, he died for no reason at all. If Lila Lipscomb wants to blame Bush, you say she has no right?

---

did i say she has no right ? no, never did.

but if she allows herself to be used by moore to further his own agenda - which has now become her's as well- then she should not expect us to continue empathizing with her when we no longer share her opinion about the war. critical difference, no ? far from all who have lost someone or have someone there are against the campaign.

quote:

---

To say it as plainly as possible: Nick Berg was a war profiteer. He went to Iraq to make a buck, like all the private contractors and corporations in the wake of the American invasion and occupation, scavengers on the carcass of Iraq. We should be ashamed

---

first, you criticize me for impugning lila's decisions, and then you turn around and call nick berg a 'war profiteer' ? this is the murdered nick berg ?!?!? sick.

will we be seeing you in the anarchist crowd whem they stage their anti-war protests at the republican convention ?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: syzygy,

quote:

---

Originally posted by KT:

quote:

---

ofcourse, lila lipscomb would have nothing but kind words for moore - she consented to his
actions. her opinion of moore is no better
than moore's.

---

The original quote I was responding to was objecting to the way Moore "Got into the faces of the greiving parents." The only time I could remember a camera being put in the face a grieving parents was the case of Lila Lipscomb, and she not only consented to it at the time, but even now after seeing the finished product is fully in support of the film, and was happy to have her grief filmed if it meant that some people could understand the impact that this war had on people like her.

SO my original point still stands, I don't have a problem with him sticking his camera in her grieving face if she doesn't.

---

true, she was a party to moore's crime. shared purpose. argueably more guilty than he because her pain had the kind of force that his splicing and choice of fact could never muster.

syzygy,

1. In case you have forgotten, we live in a liberal democracy. Lila and Moore may or may not share a common agenda, and she may or may not be exploited by Moore or vise versa, she still has the constitutional right to say and believe whatever she wants - whether in Moore's film or outside of it in the court of public opinion. It bothers you that her moral claim and judgment against George Bush makes him appear monstrous, and that she has found a perfect vehicle to express it to the maximum possible. It seems to bother you a lot.

You mean you would go over to Iraq and be willing to sacrifice your life to give Iraqis the rights you wouldn't want Lila Lipscomb to exercise?

You're engaging in guilt by association. You have an intense dislike of Moore, and because she seems to share Moore's opinion of George Bush, you have tar her with the same brush. You make the case that her opinion is no longer legitimate, and that her moral credibility is compromised by her appearance in F9/11. Far from it, by appearing in Moore's film, she will reach the tens of thousands with her opinions and judgment of George Bush. And if she is halfway persuasive, she may achieve her goal of sending George back to private life in Crawford.

Where else but in a liberal democracy can she do that? You should be proud of Lila. Instead you accused her of a "crime".

2. Do you know what an anarchist is, syzygy? Or do you think only anarchist will be demonstrating against George Bush at the Republican Convention? Or do you mean to imply that anybody who is against George Bush is an anarchist, including Democrats, independents, Pat Buchanan, the French, me, and I suppose, Michael Moore?

You seem to share the same disdain for the English language and its meanings that George Bush does: it means whatever he wants it to mean. So when he wants to invade a country, he is liberating it; and the occupation of a place is giving those people freedom; and at home, fear is security. You seem to use terms like "crime" and "anarchist" rather freely. I suppose I should count my blessing that you haven't gotten to my ancestry yet.

3. Nick Berg was killed in a war zone, the one we created in George Bush's war. Murdered? Do you supposed his killers have a "personal" motive? Or they want to rob him, like in a street mugging?

Because by your logic, our military would similarly be guilty of "murder" in the death of any Iraqi. Or are you one of those who would call this simply "collateral damage" like some mysterious act of God that nobody is ever responsible for?

And what would you call Nick Berg? Was he there trying to rebuilt Iraq? His misfortune was that he wasn't connect to one of the subsidiaries of Haliburton or know our Vice President personally, than he could've gone to Iraq and profit in a more serious and official way.

When the South lost to the Union in the Civil War, the term for people who came in to exploit the defeated South were call carpetbaggers. It isn't the same in Iraq, but we know what it is.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,

Just a word of warning since this is a flammable topic, don't let it get out of hand. Keep all comments directed toward arguing points, not slamming people personally. So far, so good but just in case ...


As for Lila Lipscomb

quote:

---

true, she was a party to moore's crime. shared purpose. argueably more guilty than he because her pain had the kind of force that his splicing and choice of fact could never muster.

---

So she is guilty of the horrible crime of ... possibly changing people's attitude toward the war with her genuine and heartfelt grief?

Getting people to believe what you believe is not in itself a crime. If you do nothing more than speak your true feelings and tell the true story of what happened to you and it happens to get some people to think differently about their view of the world, there is nothing wrong with that.

So Moore's point of view is not your point of view. It is not wrong, any more than yours is wrong. Nor is he a criminal. I would far rather be subjected to his persuasion tactics than those of the people who come to my door and intrude on me to try and get me to believe in their religion, or the people who ambush me as I'm walking down the street and then accuse me of racism when I won't contribute money to their religion. Or the people who call my home and try to persuade me that I want to buy what they are selling, and won't let me off the phone even when I politely tell them no. He may use some less-than-aboveboard tactics with his editing, which I'd rather he not because it only leaves him open to attack, but if I want to be exposed to those tactics I actually have to voluntarily go and pay money to do so, he's not projecting into my home while I'm eating dinner or something. So I think his crime is far less than those who intrude on your free time to try to force their points of view on you.

I find it interesting for an American to characterize the expression of free speech as a "crime," as syzygy does.

And this, in a country that guarantees the freedom of speech and assembly as an inalienable right, and had it written into its constitution AND Bills of Rights.

Would he want to criminalize this "crime", if that's what it is? So jail time for Michael Moore, maybe jail time for Lila?

Is this guy serious? Or does he believes, as this Bush administration does, that there are people who lack true "American values", people who might be susceptible to harboring ideas that would diminish our "freedom" and "love of freedom", who might want to form "terror cells" and "destroy America"?

There ARE places in the world where if you dissent from the government line, you can be imprisoned without due process, you can be "disappeared".

These include American allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Or places that we point to as undemocratic and not having freedom, like China and S. Korea. But recently, our own Justice Department have promulgated policies that short-circuits due process, where individuals can be arrested, held or "detained" and their paperwork "lost" for months and years at a time, and all because "after 9/11, the world is different".

In places like these, syzygy, Michael Moore would be punished for his "crime" and he might be "re-educated" so that he will only be "correct thinking" - or if he's just too much bother, be disappeared altogether.

Is this what you, syzygy, would like to see, so that we can truly live in freedom because, as George Bush say, "Americans love freedom"?

wong828,

very simply, you don't appear to care one iota for my actual words, preferring instead to reply to what i did not say. cute.

nowhere did i deny lila's right to express her beliefs nor her private citizen's wish to be part of moore's exploitation fest. period.

but what you do seem to be doing is casting aspertions against my right to criticize lila for her chosen actions. these are levels of hypocrisy and contradiction piled one on top of the other.

on top of that, your hyperbolic misstatements are a tell-tale sign that you don't care for any criticism against lila for fear that her emoting wont weather the scrutiny. you are very correct.

as for guilt by assocation ? obviously yes. she's a consenting adult who chose to be party to moore's ideological butchery. i hope you don't mind if i criticize her for that since we 'live in a liberal democracy' in which i too possesse a 'constitutional right to say and believe whatever' i wish. i promise though to use more tact than lila does.

nick berg was a businessman who owned his own company. he was seeking to rebuild iraq's infrastructure through private telecommunication contracts. his life included
helping people in uganda, kenya, and other african countries build housing and improve their access to modern technologies. while a university student he invented a 'paper brick',
the precursor to the 'bovl block', which is used today as a modular concrete block for building affordable housing in destitute areas of the world. that's who nick berg was, legions of moral rungs above the wretched likes of michael moore and other ideologues who don't know there up from down. tell me again about the killer's 'personal motives' . . . you do know that these sweet, principled, rosy cheeked, and morally righteous 'killers' you sympathize with are likely former ba'athists (like the financier they caught this week) or foreign terrorists. if they're ba'athists, then you are cheering for officers of a former police state non pareil that murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. if its the foreigners, well, hmmm . . . tough choice, eh ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KT:
Just a word of warning since this is a flammable topic, don't let it get out of hand. Keep all comments directed toward arguing points, not slamming people personally. So far, so good but just in case ...


As for Lila Lipscomb

quote:

---

true, she was a party to moore's crime. shared purpose. argueably more guilty than he because her pain had the kind of force that his splicing and choice of fact could never muster.

---

So she is guilty of the horrible crime of ... possibly changing people's attitude toward the war with her genuine and heartfelt grief?

---

there is more than one definition to crime. i did not mean the legal one or the legalistic one, but the looser definition of the term ('an evil act not necessarily punishable by law').

i would never deny lila's right to emote her way into the hearts of democratic voters anymore than i would deny other's the pleasure of overreacting to and/or mischaracterizing the words of others.

as for her aims, yes, she does hope to employ her grief for a certain cause, and therein lies the rub. i'm not sure soldiers die so that others can use their memories for political goals. but thats just me.

syzygy,

Okay, let’s look at your words:

“nowhere did i deny lila's right to express her beliefs nor her private citizen's wish to be part of moore's exploitation fest. “

But you did characterized her action as criminal, and you framed her action as one of being exploited, being unwittingly used. Isn’t this character assassination?


“casting aspertions against my right to criticize lila for her chosen actions. these are levels of hypocrisy and contradiction piled one on top of the other. “

Actually, I’m accusing you of moral convenience, denigrating Moore and Lila simply because they don’t share your belief, and their action, because they don’t suit your agenda. Now, that is hypocrisy.


“ your hyperbolic misstatements are a tell-tale sign that you don't care for any criticism against lila for fear that her emoting wont weather the scrutiny. “

Scrutiny of what? Her son was killed in Iraq, and she blames George Bush for putting him in harm’s way. You don’t like her blaming Bush. This is not a hard concept.


“she's a consenting adult who chose to be party to moore's ideological butchery.”

More character assassination. I’ve yet to hear you accuse anyone in the Bush administration of being an ideologue. Or even suggest that they engaged in mendacity and deception because of political motives.


“ i hope you don't mind if i criticize her for that since we 'live in a liberal democracy' in which i too possesse a 'constitutional right to say and believe whatever' i wish. i promise though to use more tact than lila does. “

I don’t mind at all. You make a better case for uncritical thinking and jingoistic sentiments than I ever could. Your words.

Accusing Lila of a crime is not tact. And your defense of your accusation (to KT above) is legalistic and disingenuous.


“nick berg was a businessman who owned his own company. he was seeking to rebuild iraq's infrastructure through private telecommunication contracts. his life included helping people in uganda, kenya, and other african countries build housing and improve their access to modern technologies. while a university student he invented a 'paper brick', the precursor to the 'bovl block', which is used today as a modular concrete block for building affordable housing in destitute areas of the world. that's who nick berg was, legions of moral rungs above the wretched likes of michael moore and other ideologues who don't know there up from down.”

Yes, and Nick Berg loved his wife and children. And he was a war profiteer and maybe a fool.

The above is well and fine, very high-sounding and high-minded, but besides the point. Even if he really was a humanitarian, all you’re proving is that you’re willing to give him his “reasons” – so that he and his actions can be justified, but you’re not willing to allow anyone else to have theirs. Not Michael Moore, not Lila, not any ONE Iraqi, who may have bore the brunt of our “shock and awe” technology, our invasion, and our occupation. Don't you have any sense of justice?

All you’re saying is you’re good and right, they’re bad and wrong. Just like George Bush is saying we’re in Iraq because we’re good, and whomever we kill in Iraq, well, they must be bad.

This is simple-minded thinking, and morally corrupt. I’m sure it has occurred to you that Iraqis have sons and husbands, wives and businessmen, and I’ve yet to hear you express regret or concern for their plight, a plight we put them in. Isn’t this hypocrisy and sanctimony?


“tell me again about the killer's 'personal motives' . . . you do know that these sweet, principled, rosy cheeked, and morally righteous 'killers' you sympathize with are likely former ba'athists (like the financier they caught this week) or foreign terrorists. if they're ba'athists, then you are cheering for officers of a former police state non pareil that murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens. if its the foreigners, well, hmmm . . . tough choice, eh ?”

Not at all, syzygy, they could all be monsters and child molesters and people who may want to spit on the Pope. That isn’t the problem.

The problem is that we’re there under false pretense. We didn’t have to be there. George Bush got us there by lying to us. He lied to you and me. He violated his fiduciary responsibility. Now we’re there, in Iraq, and for the Iraqis, whether they’re monsters or angels, we’re the enemy, and they will kill us if they can.

As they did Nick Berg, and Lila’s son.


And one other thing: I don't mean to denigrate your capacity for critical thought or ironic self-reflection, syzygy, but I'm sure it has occurred to you that from the vantage point of the Iraqis, Americans, and the motley crew we've browbeated or paid to be our allies, we're the "foreigners".

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wong828,